Judgment J.C. Verma, J.-This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Bhanwar Lal who was an employee of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), challenging the order Annexure-7 dated June 5, 1995 passed by the Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur approving the application moved by the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the employee) under Section 33(2)(b) whereby the order of removal from service from May 3, 1988 has been approved on the alleged charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987. 2. The facts as alleged in the petition are that the petitioner was a substantive regular employee of the Corporation. A charge-sheet dated January 9, 1987 was served upon certain charges. Copy of the charge-sheet is attached as Annexure-1. On the said charge-sheet enquiry was held. The petitioner had taken certain objections in the enquiry. After completion of the enquiry the management had decided to remove the petitioner from service vide order dated May 3, 1988 and, therefore, an application was moved under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for seeking approval for disciplinary action in the form of dismissal of the petitioner. Along with the order of removal dated May 3, 1988, the management had applied in the application moved before the Labour Court that the petitioner had been found guilty in the charge-sheet dated January 9, 1987 and, therefore, the order dated May 3, 1988 be approved as industrial dispute was pending concerning or connected with the conditions of service of the workman. 3. Approval application was rejected on April 14, 1994 for being violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 33(2) (b). The respondent-Corporation challenged the order dated April 14, 1994 (Annexure-6) in the High Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4 106/1994. 4. Before the High Court a plea was taken by the management that the removal order dated May 3, 1988 was based not on one charge- sheet, but on two charge-sheets. It was submitted that the Labour Court had gone through the charge-sheet dated January 9, 1987, but somehow has omitted to note down the charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987. May be this argument was taken by the management for the reasons that in case the workman cannot be removed on charge-sheet dated January 9, 1987, but the action can be approved on the charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987. May be this argument was taken by the management for the reasons that in case the workman cannot be removed on charge-sheet dated January 9, 1987, but the action can be approved on the charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987. The order of removal was one based on both the alleged charge-sheets. 5. ThisCourt had decided the writ petition finally on March 14, 1995 holding and directing the Industrial Tribunal to decide the application of approval in regard to another charge dated July 10, 1987 as well. However, in regard to the charge-sheet dated January 9, 1987 the order of the Tribunal for not approving the dismissal was upheld and finality was attached. 6. The Industrial Tribunal vide Annexure-7 approved the dismissal order dated May 3, 1988 on the charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987, which very order of dismissal was earlier not approved. The order in Annexure-7 is being impugned. 7. It is the contention of the petitioner that no application whatsoever was moved for approval of the disciplinary action taken on the charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987 and, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure-7) dated June 5, 1995 passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. It is the further contention that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were perverse and for the same reasons as in order dated April 14, 1994, when the approval on the application dated January 9, 1987 was rejected vide Annexure-6, the present approval application should have also been rejected. It is the further contention that the mandatory provisions and compliance of Section 33(2)(b) had never been complied with for the same reasons as mentioned in Annexure-6. 8. Facts as stated above are not denied in regard to the proposed order of dismissal dated May 3, 1998 and charge-sheet dated January 9, 1987 and further rejecting the approval of removal from service basing on charge-sheet dated January 9, 1987. 9. The High Court had given the following direction in Writ Petition No. 4106/1994 as under: “Consequently, I allow the writ, set aside the order of respondent No. 2 and direct him to decide the application submitted by the petitioner with regard to charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987. With regard to charge-sheet dated January 9, 1987, the order passed by the respondent No. 2 will remain intact. Parties are directed to appear before the respondent No. 2 on March, 30, 1995. With regard to charge-sheet dated January 9, 1987, the order passed by the respondent No. 2 will remain intact. Parties are directed to appear before the respondent No. 2 on March, 30, 1995. The respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the application only on the basis of material on record within a period of three months. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court”. 10. After hearing Counsel for the parties, the Judgment was reserved on August 31, 1999, however, at the time of going through the record produced by the parties and the Industrial Tribunal, it was found by this Court that there was no charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987 ever issued to the petitioner and, therefore, the case was listed for clarification from the parties in this regard, under the heading ‘To be mentioned’. On December 15, 1999 both the parties agreed that even though the High Court had in the Judgment Annexure-R-1 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4 106/1994 had directed the Labour Court to give finding on the approval application concerning the charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987, but there was no charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987 ever issued. It was stated that “there might be some other charge-sheet of some other date”, as per order of this Court dated December 15, 1999. 11. Arguments were heard once again and Judgment was reserved on January 17, 2000. It is very interesting to note that the Corporation was pressing for a decision on the charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987 but there is no charge-sheet ever issued which is dated July 10, 1987. Even, the Industrial Tribunal in the impugned award has approved the action being taken on the charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987. May be for the reason that the record was not produced before the High Court in the earlier writ petition, and this High Court had directed the Industrial Tribunal to decide the approval action on the charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987 on the submissions made by the parties; it seems neither Counsel for the parties, nor the Industrial Tribunal had cared to see whether there was any charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987, action on which required to be approved or not approved. It is a case where at least the Industrial Tribunal with whom the record was available should have seen this fact and not have blindly followed the application moved by the Corporation on the order of termination where the charge-sheet number was mentioned as 3581 dated July 10, 1987. While approving or disapproving or deciding the case of approval under Section 33(2)(b), not only the correct facts should have been brought to the notice of the Industrial Tribunal but it is incumbent upon the Industrial Tribunal to get the record produced in regard to the charge-sheet as well. 12. Record in regard to the enquiry of the charge-sheet dated January 9, 1987 was also produced before the Industrial Tribunal. No copy of the charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987 was ever produced. The only letter dated July 10, 1987 with No. 3581 is a letter of appointment of an enquiry officer and not of charge-sheet. Even though there seems to be some other charge-sheet of some other date other than January 9, 1987, but the Corporation had never sought the approval of the action of any other charge-sheet than the charge-sheet dated January 9, 1987 and July 10, 1987. The action on charge- sheet dated January 9, 1987 has been disapproved which has been upheld by the High Court There was no charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987 and thus the very contention of the Corporation before the High Court in the earlier writ petition that the charge sheet dated July 10, 1987 needs approval had no basis. 13. Viewing from another angle, the order of termination (Annexure-3) was one order based on combined effect of the so-called two charge-sheets and the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) were to be complied with before filing an approval application. Application moved under Section 33(2) (b) was filed for approving the order of removal mentioning therein the charge-sheet dated January 9, 1987 only which is borne out of the record of the Industrial Tribunal itself This, application was rejected vide Annexure-6 by the Industrial Tribunal on April 14, 1994 which order was confirmed by a valid order by the High Court. 14. 14. In view of the above said facts, I am of the opinion that the Industrial Tribunal while approving the same action of the termination of the service which was rejected by it vide Annexure-6 for the charge sheet dated January 9, 1987, had committed an illegality on the face of record by approving the same action order based on alleged charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987 which charge-sheet was not in existence at all and for which charge-sheet there was no application moved by the Corporation before the Industrial Tribunal. The application was moved for approval of the termination order dated May 3, 1988 passed on the charge-sheet dated January 1, 1987 only but still by mistaken fact, the Industrial Tribunal was directed to also adjudicate for approval or disapproval of the action taken on charge-sheet dated July 10, 1987 which charge-sheet had never been issued and was not on record nor any approval sought for by way of separate application. 15. For the discussions and reasons mentioned above, in my opinion, the petition must succeed and the order dated June 5, 1995 (Annexure-7) passed by the Industrial Tribunal is to be set aside. 16. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated June 5, 1995 is quashed. No order as to costs.